161–170 of 1001 posts
This is how you know you're dealing with an evil tyrant.
And he claims to have made his fortune by just helping people and not expecting anything in return. Well, the reality here is that was a lie.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, courts have generally found that this is "under duress" and not enforceable.
Under duress in the contractual world is generally interpreted as “you are about to be killed or maimed.” Economic duress is distinct.
Perhaps as an example of the blurred line; Pre-nup agreements sprung the day of the wedding, will not hold up in a US court with a competent lawyer challenging them.
You can try to call it 'economic' duress but any non-sociopath sees there are other factors at play.
As I say over and over again: equity compensation from a non-publicly traded company should not be accepted as a surrogate for below market compensation. If a startup wants to provide compensation to employees via equity, then those employees should have first right to convert equity to cash in funding rounds or sale, there shares must be the same class as any other investor, because the idea that an “early employee”…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ITT: a bunch of laymen thinking their 2 second proposal will outlawyer the team of lawyers who drafted these.
You haven't worked with many contracts, have you? Unenforceable clauses are the norm, most people are willing to follow them rather than risk having to fight them in court.
I have seen a lot of companies put unenforceable stuff into their employment agreements, separation agreements, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Talking to a lawyer is **never** bad advice. Especially in CA where companies will make you THINK they have power which they don’t.
I’d be more afraid of their less-than-above-board power than their litigation power. People with $10-100 billion dollars who are highly connected to every major tech company and many shadowy companies we’ve never heard of can figure out a lot of my secrets and make life miserable enough for me that I don’t have the ability/energy to follow through with legal proceedings, even if I don’t attribute the walls collapsing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't really contradict what the other poster said. They're calling for regulation (digging a moat) to ensure systems are "safe" and "aligned" while ignoring that humans are not aligned, so these systems obviously cannot be aligned with humans; they can only be aligned with their owners (i.e. them, not you).
Humans are not aligned with humans. This is the most concise takedown of that particular branch of nonsense that I’ve seen so far. Do we want woke AI, X brand fash-pilled AI, CCPBot, or Emirates Bot? The possibilities are endless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_artificial_intelligen...
And here is a more detailed explanation:
Unfortunately this is actually pretty common in Wall St, where they leverage your multiple years of clawback-able shares to make you sign non-disparagement clauses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To really stress this: OpenAI's still-present cofounder shared yesterday on a podcast that they expect AGI in ~2 years and ASI (superpassing human intelligence) by end of the decade. What's his track record on promises/predictions of this sort? I wasn't paying attention until pretty recently.
As a child I used to watch a TV programme called Tomorrows World. On it they predicted these very same things in similar timeframes. That programme aired in the 1980's. Other than vested promises is there much to indicate it's close at all? Empty promises aside there isn't really any indication of that being likely at all.